Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Next Time a Critic Gripes Re: Church's Business Interests . . . Quote Quinn


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

For corporations and institutions I believe their obligations to their stakeholders outweigh the arguments for greater flexibility.  I'm not sure the burden of proof is on those arguing for transparency, I think the burden falls on everyone's shoulders on both sides.  The public opinion on financial transparency in government is overwhelmingly supportive, so you could make the argument that the burden lies with those who oppose efforts towards transparency.  I couldn't find any polls specific to religious financial transparency, that would be interesting to know.  

I'd disagree, although I actually think the negative effects of transparency in public corporations (a huge incentive to focus only on the short term) is a huge problem with going public. (The benefits of course are the capital to grow the company) 

Public opinion on transparency doesn't mean much to me given how ignorant the public typically is about most things. My concern is that typically government transparency past a certain point just leads to elements being taken out of context and sensationalized in a deceptive way. Were the public more educated about such matters I'd probably have far more faith in transparency. But I think that most of the time it's just used as a source of easy to misrepresent bits of data dealt with primarily through emotional appeals of sophistry.

You see this all the time when people hear how much a building costs while being completely ignorant of how much buildings typically cost.

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

The word "stakeholder" is meaningless governmental bureaucratic jargon with no application to religion. 

Yes, there is a certain amount of "subsidy" and "free money" associated with the Church because of tax exemptions.  I oppose tax exemptions for religion.  I believe they violate the Establishment Clause.  Nonetheless, the government offers it.  There is no known legal or "moral" principle requiring anybody to make their records public simply because they take advantage of tax exemptions.   I deduct business expenses; the public does not have the right to see my business books and records.

I'm going to quibble with you on this one. The IRS does require tax-exempt 501(c)(3) charities to comply with a level of transparency. According to IRS Publication 4221-PC (Rev. 7-2014), public charities are required to disclose Annual Reports, Exemption Applications, and so forth. I think there is an underlying principle for why this is so. Their tax exemptions are a form of subsidization by the government. Theoretically, society is willing to provide this subsidization because the charities are somehow making the world a better place. But in order for the people to be able to make informed decisions whether the laws granting tax exemption make sense and ought to persist, we need to know what the organizations are actually doing (to say nothing of giving people the ability to make wise decisions about donating).

I share your opposition to tax exemptions for religion. However, I believe that in principle, whenever an organization is granted broad tax exempt status, it should be required to be transparent. We already do that with 501(c)(3)'s. We should also do it with churches who wish to be tax exempt. As with charities, if a church chooses not to be transparent that would remain its prerogative, but in such circumstances it should lose its tax-exempt status.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

The word "stakeholder" is meaningless governmental bureaucratic jargon with no application to religion. 

I'm using the term stakeholder to mean someone that has an interest in something.  

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

Yes, there is a certain amount of "subsidy" and "free money" associated with the Church because of tax exemptions.  I oppose tax exemptions for religion.  I believe they violate the Establishment Clause.  Nonetheless, the government offers it.  There is no known legal or "moral" principle requiring anybody to make their records public simply because they take advantage of tax exemptions.   I deduct business expenses; the public does not have the right to see my business books and records. There is no "ethical" rule requiring such and your claim of "moral" right is based on your subjective view of morality, right?

Morality/ethics are subjective, yes.  

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

My parents raised me.  They spent a lot of money on me.  I lived in their home.  I did work for them and gave limited help in their old age (actually, almost none, but my siblings helped out).  That doesn't give me the right to demand financial transparency from them.  

To browbeat the Church with the notion of financial transparency, there must be something (1) required by law or known ethics and (2) not contrary to revealed principles.  As there is no law or known ethics controlling the situation, and as the D&C says that once you make a donation your interest in your money is over, that tells me that financial secrecy is part of established religion in this case.  

My comment about a malcontent applied to my good friend.  It has nothing to do with you.  You're anonymous.  He wasn't.  He made demands to have better understanding of church finances and the church granted his request.  He was a malcontent in every aspect of church doctrine and procedure.  He was a great guy; but after his conversion he just couldn't sign on to a patriarchal religion. 

You really can't resist using divisive language when you present an argument it sounds like,  "demand financial transparency".  I'm arguing for it, not "demanding" it, or "browbeating" anyone.  If you want to have respectful, productive discussions with me, you're going to need to tone down the rhetoric.  I'm not accusing you of bad faith or putting labels on the perspectives you're sharing.  

I don't believe secrecy is a theological principle that has any divine origins.  I think some church leaders might have thought it was, Joseph certainly was concerned about keeping many secrets.  I think that's done damage to the LDS church tradition, especially the idea of keeping secrets for God, as if God needs us to keep secrets.  Surely there are some things that are more private than others, but in general this rational was taken way too far in the Mormon tradition and I think it continues to haunt our denomination as well as many break off Mormon factions, it is part of the legacy of Mormonism and it is a legacy with many more negatives than positives.  

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In this case, "financial transparency" is a well-defined ethical standard that public corporations, non-profits, and churches should adhere too.  If the LDS Church should do what is right, it should be transparent.

Most public corporations, non-profits, and churches have critics. That isn't an excuse not to be financially transparent.

Well, let's see.  Your first link about "public corporations" doesn't include a definition at all for "transparency," let alone a "well-defined" one.  In fact, the link acknowledges the ambiguity of the term:

Quote

The word "transparent" can be used to describe high-quality financial statements. The term has quickly become a part of business vocabulary. Dictionaries offer many definitions for the word, but those synonyms relevant to financial reporting are: "easily understood," "very clear," "frank" and "candid."

So that one doesn't work well.

Your third link about "churches" just speaks in the abstract to address the question "How transparent should church finances be?"  No definition, no metric by which "transparency" could be quantified.  So that one doesn't seem to help, either.

That leaves the second link, for "non-profits."  What does it say?  Well...

Quote

As tax-exempt “public charities," charitable nonprofits embrace the values of accountability and transparency as a matter of ethical leadership, as well as legal compliance.

Leaders of charitable nonprofits know that financial transparency will help preserve the very-important trust each donor places in a nonprofit with each contribution. Additionally, and no less importantly, conduct that is accountable and transparent earns employees' trust and creates a positive workplace culture. Earning trust through financial transparency and accountability goes beyond what the law requires, but let’s start there: Nonprofits are required to disclose certain financial information to the public upon request; board members have access to financial information in order to fulfill their fiduciary duty to the nonprofit.

In other words, "transparency" involves, at its essence, "the values of accountability and transparency as a matter of ethical leadership, as well as legal compliance."

Here is the report the Church provides to the membership every April (this one is from 2017):

Quote

To the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Dear Brethren: As directed by revelation in section 120 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Council on the Disposition of the Tithes—composed of the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the Presiding Bishopric—authorizes the expenditure of Church funds. Church entities disburse funds in accordance with approved budgets, policies, and procedures.

The Church Auditing Department, which consists of credentialed professionals and is independent of all other Church departments, has responsibility to perform audits for the purpose of providing reasonable assurance regarding contributions received, expenditures made, and safeguarding of Church assets.

Based upon audits performed, the Church Auditing Department is of the opinion that, in all material respects, contributions received, expenditures made, and assets of the Church for the year 2016 have been recorded and administered in accordance with approved Church budgets, policies, and accounting practices. The Church follows the practices taught to its members of living within a budget, avoiding debt, and saving against a time of need.

Respectfully submitted,

Church Auditing Department

This seems to speak to the values described above.  Could there be some vast, ongoing conspiracy to deceive both the members of the Church, the government, and the general public?  Well, I suppose.  But this seems unlikely.  Here's one reason why:

Quote

I don’t believe the LDS Church is hiding some great financial secret: there’s too many accountants at the LDS Church, including some who have turned against the Church, for unethical dealings to not have been leaked by now. Enron had a much shorter life than the LDS Church, and it was dismantled by someone on the inside, not someone reading financial statements. Considering that Enron was stocked full of self interested employees, not people who grew up believing that their organization should be held to a higher standard than everything else, serious Church financial wrong doing would have come out by now.

At best, if we had transparency, you’d get a small group of people complaining that the LDS Church is wrong because it does their finances differently than they would do it, while everyone else would get bored before scrolling to the end of the released PDF.

I think that's about right.

Anyway, getting back to the second link:

Quote

Ten additional ways nonprofits can demonstrate financial transparency

  1. Be honest in solicitation materials and truthful and clear in communications with donors about how their gifts will be or have been used. (Read about ethical practices in fundraising.)
  2. Adopt a conflict of interest policy with a disclosure statement that all board and staff review annually.
  3. Adopt an executive compensation policy to ensure that the full board is aware of, and approves, the compensation of the executive director/CEO.
  4. Ensure that the board of directors reviews timely financial reports and also reviews the IRS Form 990 prior to filing.
  5. Adopt sound financial management policies, including internal controls, to ensure accountability.
  6. Be clear about who is accountable for the nonprofit’s expenditures by adopting expense policies, such as a travel expense reimbursement policy (requiring prior approval and limiting expenditures to what is reasonable.)
  7. Be candid about the tax-exempt status of the nonprofit on the organization’s website.
  8. Be candid also about who is on the board of directors by publishing a list of names on the organization’s website.
  9. Post financial information on the nonprofit’s website, such as a copy of the organization’s recent IRS Form 990, audited financial statements and annual reports, as applicable.
  10. Respond appropriately to requests for copies of financial reports, as required by the IRS public disclosure requirements.

"Honest in solicitation materials?"  I think the Church does well here.

"Clear in communications with donors?"  Well, in the broad strokes, yes.  The membership of the Church does not see leaders of the Church living in mansions, driving luxury vehicles, owning yachts/jets, etc.  Instead, they see missionary work on a scale perhaps unsurpassed by any other religious group.  And thousands of buildings.  And dozens of temples.  And humanitarian outreach.  And so on.  So I think the Church does well here, too.

"Conflict of interest policy?"  I'm not aware of any such problems with the Church.

"Executive compensation policy?"  Well, we know the General Authorities are living generally modest (not affluent) lives, and often receive compensation far less than what they could earn otherwise (and often well past when they would have otherwise retired).

"Timely financial reports" to those in charge?  Yep.

Compliance with legal requirements?  Yep.

Sound financial management principles?  Yep.

And so it goes.  The Church already seems to be doing most or all of the things that, according to your link, "can demonstrate financial transparency."

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd disagree, although I actually think the negative effects of transparency in public corporations (a huge incentive to focus only on the short term) is a huge problem with going public. (The benefits of course are the capital to grow the company) 

Public opinion on transparency doesn't mean much to me given how ignorant the public typically is about most things. My concern is that typically government transparency past a certain point just leads to elements being taken out of context and sensationalized in a deceptive way. Were the public more educated about such matters I'd probably have far more faith in transparency. But I think that most of the time it's just used as a source of easy to misrepresent bits of data dealt with primarily through emotional appeals of sophistry.

You see this all the time when people hear how much a building costs while being completely ignorant of how much buildings typically cost.

Clark,

I see what you're saying completely, and I too am concerned deeply about how misinformed the public is about so many things and how media can distort things and manipulate the public opinion.  But what you're arguing for sounds akin to an elitism that rather than trusting the public to make good decisions you would advocate for those in power to have special access to information to make all the decisions for us. 

We have an obligation to better educate, to win the war of words.  The answer to misinformation is education and stronger argumentation to win the hearts and minds of people, not to close down communication and confine the decision making to a select few that run the show.  This same kind of argument has been used by some of the most repressive regimes in the history of the world, surely you're not in favor of aristocracy style governance?  

This is the information age, as I said earlier, technology will continue to make information more available regardless of how people try to control it.  We have to find ways to educate society or we are doomed in the future.  This is the burden of the changing of the times and the answer is not to try and control information, its to learn to influence people through honest, persuasive arguments.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

The word "stakeholder" is meaningless governmental bureaucratic jargon with no application to religion. 

 

It's business jargon and despite that fact, it actually does mean something.

Edited by Gray
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Clark,

I see what you're saying completely, and I too am concerned deeply about how misinformed the public is about so many things and how media can distort things and manipulate the public opinion.  But what you're arguing for sounds akin to an elitism that rather than trusting the public to make good decisions you would advocate for those in power to have special access to information to make all the decisions for us. 

We have an obligation to better educate, to win the war of words.  The answer to misinformation is education and stronger argumentation to win the hearts and minds of people, not to close down communication and confine the decision making to a select few that run the show.  This same kind of argument has been used by some of the most repressive regimes in the history of the world, surely you're not in favor of aristocracy style governance?  

This is the information age, as I said earlier, technology will continue to make information more available regardless of how people try to control it.  We have to find ways to educate society or we are doomed in the future.  This is the burden of the changing of the times and the answer is not to try and control information, its to learn to influence people through honest, persuasive arguments.  

What are your thoughts about balancing "transparency" with concerns about excessive governmental (or private party) intrusion into the affairs of private parties, both individuals and groups?

I think Bob C. raises some good points here:

Quote

To browbeat the Church with the notion of financial transparency, there must be something (1) required by law or known ethics and (2) not contrary to revealed principles.  As there is no law or known ethics controlling the situation, and as the D&C says that once you make a donation your interest in your money is over, that tells me that financial secrecy is part of established religion in this case.  

And here:

Quote

First Amendment religions, especially corporations sole, are free to do what they want.  The Doctrine & Covenants plainly says that if you make a donation to the Church, you aren't getting it back.  You have no call on Church finances.  I take that to mean that a member's financial interest in the Church ends at the conclusion of a donation.   Again, a member has no call on the Church's handling of your money.   it is embedded in the D&C and I quite doubt that the Church would ever change and make disclosures.

...

It is my First Amendment right and desire to give my money to a Church which does not display its finances.   Having said that, if you are a member of the Church you have every right to complain about the Church's finances.  I had a malcontent friend in the church who complained and an Apostle invited him to Salt Lake for a discussion.  The Apostle took him around to various Church facilities, opened up some records, and my malcontent friend came away surprised and satisfied.  I was surprised because he was one of the most negative and cynical people I have ever known.  He was a brilliant guy, otherwise.  But, complaining may go too far and be inconsistent with your obligations as a member. 

And, "transparency" is indeed a "buzzword" with little meaning.  I don't think that word exists in the laws dealing with financial disclosure.  I do know that when somebody is using it in the context of the Church, it is just a term of brow-beating.  Why brow-beat any religion?  Should I brow-beat the local Sephardic community down the street which forbids its women from driving?

I would love to be proven wrong in my concerns about ulterior motives, government intrusion, and the rest.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's business jargon and despite that fact, it actually does mean something.

Okay.  Then what does it mean?  Where is the definition?  Who defined it?  How does that definition vary from group to group (surely "transparency" as to a publicly-traded corporation is going to be a very different question from "transparency" as to, say, a private religious group).

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  Then what does it mean?  Where is the definition?  Who defined it?  How does that definition vary from group to group (surely "transparency" as to a publicly-traded corporation is going to be a very different question from "transparency" as to, say, a private religious group).

Thanks,

-Smac

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/stakeholder.html

 

Quote


A person, group or organization that has interest or concern in an organization.

Stakeholders can affect or be affected by the organization's actions, objectives and policies. Some examples of key stakeholders are creditors, directors, employees, government (and its agencies), owners (shareholders), suppliers, unions, and the community from which the business draws its resources.

Not all stakeholders are equal. A company's customers are entitled to fair trading practices but they are not entitled to the same consideration as the company's employees.

An example of a negative impact on stakeholders is when a company needs to cut costs and plans a round of layoffs.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/stakeholder.html

 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

But what you're arguing for sounds akin to an elitism that rather than trusting the public to make good decisions you would advocate for those in power to have special access to information to make all the decisions for us. 

I have no trouble agreeing that's what I'm arguing for. I think that ideally what we have are elites who can be thrown out if they do a poor job. I have zero faith that the masses will make good decisions over the particulars, just over very broad general trends. 

That's why I favor a Republic rather than the direct democracy I see so many assuming ought be our ideal. I think transparency and democracy are means to an end and not the end itself.

Quote

We have an obligation to better educate, to win the war of words.  The answer to misinformation is education and stronger argumentation to win the hearts and minds of people, not to close down communication and confine the decision making to a select few that run the show.  This same kind of argument has been used by some of the most repressive regimes in the history of the world, surely you're not in favor of aristocracy style governance?  

The main difference between a Republic and the things you list is whether the masses have a voice. But I think the idea that education will win the hearts and minds is demonstrably false. When given a choice between responsible information and TMZ like sensationalism the market has spoken. And it wants news like Fox News or MSNBC with a tabloid focus. 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't get it.  You are elsewhere claiming that more "transparency" is owed because the Church is tax-exempt, and hence "subsidized" by taxpayers, and that that their "right to know" stems from this legal context.  Here, however, you are discounting a "legal" context and claiming a "moral" one.  

So which is it?

The degree of financial "transparency" (as several have noted, this term has no coherent meaning, other than the arbitrary whims of self-appointed "watchdogs" who are also very often enemies and critics of the Church) is much more a "legal" issue than a "moral" one.

And FWIW, I disagree that any such "moral right" exists.  By your reckoning, I can demand to be let inside Pres. Monson's home to see how he lives.  I have a "moral right" to do this because . . . I say so.

Would you buy that?

Current law doesn't require the level of transparency I'm looking for, so that's why my argument is moral, and I would like to see new laws enacted, sure.  

As for Pres. Monson, you can argue for anything you want, you could argue that he should wear an orange pointy hat during conference, but that doesn't make your argument persuasive.  My argument is based on reasoning that I believe is sound and many other countries agree as they have laws on their books requiring greater financial transparency of religious institutions, some countries I believe don't give tax exempt status either.  Perhaps all those people other countries are just as crazy as I am, and the desire for greater transparency is morally equivalent with wanting to see into President Monson's home?  

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Ah.  "A certain amount of financial transparency."  That really clears things up!

And if the Church were to increase its disclosures and improve its "financial transparency," then all would be well, right?  Well, no.  Because "a certain amount" is infinitely flexible.  It means whatever the individual wants it to mean.  Hence the likelihood of even more demands for more "transparency."  And more after that.

Out of curiosity, what metric do you propose for a sufficient level of "transparency" from the LDS Church?

You're really all over the place with logical fallacies today.  Slippery slope infinitely flexible complaints...  You must really be worried about the Church's finances or something, personally I don't expect we'd find any scandals, but I do think we'd see some eye opening things about the amount of wealth and the lack of philanthropic work as a percentage of revenue.  But that's just my suspicion.  

As for metrics, because I'm a finance guy, I would like to see the books (income statement, balance sheet, cash flows) but there are lots of other things that would be interesting, compensation, interests in private institutions, etc.  

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'll leave it to you to assess whether you are "chronically discontented or dissatisfied."

I'm not sure "malcontent" is innately pejorative (any more than "critic" is).  

Thanks,

-Smac

Other dictionaries definitely place a more pejorative spin on it.  

Webster: 

Quote

:a discontented person:
a :one who bears a grudge from a sense of grievance or thwarted ambition
malcontents … bitter and almost choking with self-pity —E. W. Griffiths
b :one who is in active opposition to an established order or government :rebel a country infested with political malcontents

Cambridge: 

Quote

a person who is not satisfied with the way things are, and who complains a lot and is unreasonable and difficult to deal with

 

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm going to quibble with you on this one. The IRS does require tax-exempt 501(c)(3) charities to comply with a level of transparency. According to IRS Publication 4221-PC (Rev. 7-2014), public charities are required to disclose Annual Reports, Exemption Applications, and so forth. I think there is an underlying principle for why this is so. Their tax exemptions are a form of subsidization by the government. Theoretically, society is willing to provide this subsidization because the charities are somehow making the world a better place. But in order for the people to be able to make informed decisions whether the laws granting tax exemption make sense and ought to persist, we need to know what the organizations are actually doing (to say nothing of giving people the ability to make wise decisions about donating).

I share your opposition to tax exemptions for religion. However, I believe that in principle, whenever an organization is granted broad tax exempt status, it should be required to be transparent. We already do that with 501(c)(3)'s. We should also do it with churches who wish to be tax exempt. As with charities, if a church chooses not to be transparent that would remain its prerogative, but in such circumstances it should lose its tax-exempt status.

2
2

Your citation does not apply to religions.  Charities in each state are governed by the state attorney general's office.  In order to obtain charitable 501(c)(3) status, a charity must have a letter of authorization from the attorney general.  So, in such case, specific law requires charities to make certain returns public.  Such is true for publicly-traded companies.  It is not true for many other businesses, including my own, even though my business contributes substantially to charity and gets tax deductions.  So, the "principle" does not apply, due to First Amendment protections.  

Its like the Second Amendment.  You can argue all you want that guns shouldn't be in the hands of nincompoops but in the U.S. the Second Amendment trumps it.

Should a church be transparent about its admission policies in terms of not discriminating against suspect classification groups?  

Should a church be transparent about the educational attributes of its ministers, in terms of qualifying for the ministry?

Should a church be transparent about the efforts it takes to screen volunteers to serve with the elderly?

If not, why then about its balance sheet?

Your comment about losing a tax exempt status is unpersuasive.  I don't think any church, including the LDS church, should have a tax exempt status.  

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I have no trouble agreeing that's what I'm arguing for. I think that ideally what we have are elites who can be thrown out if they do a poor job. I have zero faith that the masses will make good decisions over the particulars, just over very broad general trends. 

That's why I favor a Republic rather than the direct democracy I see so many assuming ought be our ideal. I think transparency and democracy are means to an end and not the end itself.

The main difference between a Republic and the things you list is whether the masses have a voice. But I think the idea that education will win the hearts and minds is demonstrably false. When given a choice between responsible information and TMZ like sensationalism the market has spoken. And it wants news like Fox News or MSNBC with a tabloid focus. 

I have more faith in the people, and like I said, you won't be able to control the information, that is the trend of technology.  Pragmatically I reject your argument because its not going to be possible to limit what people know effectively.  Also, I believe its our obligation and our challenge to get better at persuasion, the answer to misinformation is not more control by elites, its better information and education.  

I'm also in support of our representative republic for complex problems, but this shouldn't mean hiding the information and shutting off debate which the Republicans are doing now and the Democrats did when they were in power.  We need people to look forward with boldness and we can't let our fears control and stifle us.  I'm an optimist and I think we can do this and its the right thing to do and its the best way to deal with information in an increasingly transparent world.  

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

My argument is based on reasoning that I believe is sound and many other countries agree as they have laws on their books requiring greater financial transparency of religious institutions,

And many countries do not have such laws.  

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

some countries I believe don't give tax exempt status either. 

And some do.

"Because other people do it" is not very persuasive.

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Perhaps all those people other countries are just as crazy as I am, and the desire for greater transparency is morally equivalent with wanting to see into President Monson's home?  

I have no idea what you mean by "greater transparency."  You won't define the term.  You won't explain what it is you are looking for.  Without limiting principles (which you haven't provided), yes, what you are calling for is "morally equivalent with wanting to see into President Monson's home."

So what sort of improved "transparency" are you calling for?

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You're really all over the place with logical fallacies today.  Slippery slope infinitely flexible complaints...  You must really be worried about the Church's finances or something,

Nope.  Not worried about the Church.  I am, however, concerned about critics calling for "transparency" as a pretext for . . . something else.  I've explained that several times now.

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

personally I don't expect we'd find any scandals, but I do think we'd see some eye opening things about the amount of wealth and the lack of philanthropic work as a percentage of revenue.  But that's just my suspicion.  

And there it is (again).  You aren't looking for "transparency."  You are looking for . . . dirt.  You are looking for grist.  You are looking for data points to be deployed against the Church.

By the way, what is "philanthropic work?"  What would be included in that?  I suspect it wouldn't matter.  The critics aren't interested in the welfare of those the Church helps.  The critics are only interested in data points for use in attacking the Church. It's an exercise in futility to try to placate faultfinders, because they will always be able to succeed in that exercise.  Always.

And your admission that you are not concerned about "scandals," and instead hoping for data points to weaponize against the Church pretty much confirms what I surmised.  I appreciate you at least being up-front about that.

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

As for metrics, because I'm a finance guy, I would like to see the books (income statement, balance sheet, cash flows) but there are lots of other things that would be interesting, compensation, interests in private institutions, etc.  

"Lots of other things" = Endless demands for more disclosures.  And more after that.  And more after that.

Yep, you're pretty much confirming my previous surmise.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, let's see.  Your first link about "public corporations" doesn't include a definition at all for "transparency," let alone a "well-defined" one.  In fact, the link acknowledges the ambiguity of the term:

So that one doesn't work well....

I am struggling to understand your argument here. First you seem to be claiming that financial transparency really isn't a well defined concept, and then you try to argue that the Church really is financially transparent.

In any case, I'm pretty sure my hunch about what is really going on here is different than what you think. Your link to that blog from the accountant totally missed the mark.

The Evangelical Council of Financial Accountability lays out their case for why financial transparency is important to carrying out what they claim to be Christ's work. They say:

"Financial disclosure is not only an accepted, expected, and required form of accountability in society at large, but it also represents the even higher standard of openness for Christ-centered organizations. It may be true that public disclosure of financial information is required, in part, to protect the donor public. While this is the reason most often given to justify governmental regulation, the reputation of Christ-centered ministries in general is at stake.

"Public disclosure protects Christian ministry from the danger of claiming ownership of God’s gifts. It also protects us from the temptation to acquire assets as our lasting goal. Furthermore, the availability of financial statements promotes responsible Christian stewardship over assets as donors seek to make monetary investments in the work of the Kingdom."

We know the LDS Church has a large corporate empire. We know it takes in more than it spends. We know that it is "saving for a rainy day." But how much has it saved? How big is the rainy day fund? Those are the details the Church doesn't want anybody to know. My speculation is that if the membership knew how much the church has saved, many members would reconsider whether they should at least temporarily reduce their tithing and instead work on their own rainy day funds. And I think that if the apostles knew how much money the church has saved, that would influence the decisions they make, too.

Not even the apostles are allowed to see the church's balance sheet. That is what they are hiding. That is what it is really about.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Analytics said:

Not even the apostles are allowed to see the church's balance sheet. That is what they are hiding. That is what it is really about.

I agree. What it is really about is that the career accusers want to beat this up into an accusation.

IOW, you, who have neither part nor lot in this matter, demand "financial transparency" of a church to which you do not contribute, purely as a pretext to attribute dishonesty to them.

Well, I don't have a problem with financial transparency, and neither I nor (as far as I can tell) anyone else has argued against it. But since I trust the leaders of the Church, and don't assume that they are "hiding" anything, I'm not going to get bent out of shape about it.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Your citation does not apply to religions.  Charities in each state are governed by the state attorney general's office.  In order to obtain charitable 501(c)(3) status, a charity must have a letter of authorization from the attorney general.  So, in such case, specific law requires charities to make certain returns public.  Such is true for publicly-traded companies.  It is not true for many other businesses, including my own, even though my business contributes substantially to charity and gets tax deductions.  So, the "principle" does not apply, due to First Amendment protections.  

Its like the Second Amendment.  You can argue all you want that guns shouldn't be in the hands of nincompoops but in the U.S. the Second Amendment trumps it.

Should a church be transparent about its admission policies in terms of not discriminating against suspect classification groups?  

Should a church be transparent about the educational attributes of its ministers, in terms of qualifying for the ministry?

Should a church be transparent about the efforts it takes to screen volunteers to serve with the elderly?

If not, why then about its balance sheet?

Your comment about losing a tax exempt status is unpersuasive.  I don't think any church, including the LDS church, should have a tax exempt status.  

Of course churches aren't 501(c)(3)'s. I'm merely suggesting that 501(c)(3) is based upon underlying principles that should apply more broadly, even though in actuality they don't. But having said that, I completely agree with your opinion that churches shouldn't be tax exempt in the first place.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I agree. What it is really about is that the career accusers want to beat this up into an accusation.

IOW, you, who have neither part nor lot in this matter, demand "financial transparency" of a church to which you do not contribute, purely as a pretext to attribute dishonesty to them.

Well, I don't have a problem with financial transparency, and neither I nor (as far as I can tell) anyone else has argued against it. But since I trust the leaders of the Church, and don't assume that they are "hiding" anything, I'm not going to get bent out of shape about it.

I am not demanding anything, and I'm not attributing dishonesty to anyone.

Anyway, I'm glad you are in favor of financial transparency. I'm not bent out of shape about it, and I am absolutely positive that nothing wayward is happening with the money. But there must be a reason that not even apostles are authorized to see the church's balance sheet. Acknowledging the virtue of transparency and speculating about why they choose to divert from that standard isn't the same thing as demanding they do something else and accusing them of dishonesty.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

I agree. What it is really about is that the career accusers want to beat this up into an accusation.

IOW, you, who have neither part nor lot in this matter, demand "financial transparency" of a church to which you do not contribute, purely as a pretext to attribute dishonesty to them.

Well, I don't have a problem with financial transparency, and neither I nor (as far as I can tell) anyone else has argued against it. But since I trust the leaders of the Church, and don't assume that they are "hiding" anything, I'm not going to get bent out of shape about it.

If the Church was hiding something, how would you know?

The Church is unquestionably keeping hidden the financial details of its operation, we know this because they are...well...not published (except in those countries where the law requires it).

The actual question surrounding the lack of financial transparency is wether that lack of disclosure is in some way protecting deliberate malfeasance, unwitting malfeasance, nepotism or some other nefarious or non faith promoting activity or expenditure. Or if the sum total portrays a picture that would worry or trouble the membership. My own speculation/opinion on the matter (currently) is that were the financial records of the Church faith promoting, they would be published. The lack of disclosure suggests to me that they are deemed not faith promoting.

Edited by Marginal Gains
Link to comment
16 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm using the term stakeholder to mean someone that has an interest in something.  

It's not at all clear why having an interest in something entails one should have any voice in the matter. In a government by the people for the people one can make a case we all have a voice. Ditto formal shareholders in a public corporation. But if I'm curious of my neighbor's business that should not in any way shape or form entail I have a right to know.

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I have more faith in the people, and like I said, you won't be able to control the information, that is the trend of technology.  Pragmatically I reject your argument because its not going to be possible to limit what people know effectively.  Also, I believe its our obligation and our challenge to get better at persuasion, the answer to misinformation is not more control by elites, its better information and education.  

That's certainly the argument of some. Take Wikileaks' claim that information wants to be free. I think that's a horrible argument. It'd basically mean if I have a security camera I password protect you ought to be able to see it since security can be cracked.

As to the masses, you have faith education will do such things while neglecting the limits of education - not all have the skills to be educated nor the time/skill to become sufficiently educated in order to have an opinion that's sufficiently educated. I recognize that right now culturally there's deep skepticism and outright hostility towards experts. Trump is one manifestation of that populism besetting the country right now. I think the evidence is pretty strong that the masses are uneducated about most matters and that their judgments are poor. The idea this would change with education seems more a faith than a position with much demonstrable evidence. In any case I'd certainly change my view if the masses did become educated in that way. The reality is that right now they are ridiculously far from such educated views.

I certainly don't mind efforts to attempt to educate the populace. I think a more educated populace is a good thing. The question is more whether the can become educated enough to make transparency the good you think it is. Until we have evidence that the populace is so educated why don't we ease back on the transparency a little given that the public is making so many bad decisions in their current state.

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Analytics said:

I am struggling to understand your argument here. First you seem to be claiming that financial transparency really isn't a well defined concept,

Yes.  It is a vague, amorphous, ambiguous concept.

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

and then you try to argue that the Church really is financially transparent.

To the extent that "financial transparancy" means something, and to the extent you provided some indicia as to what "financial transparency" means, and to the extent the Church's behavior matches those indicia, yes.

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

In any case, I'm pretty sure my hunch about what is really going on here is different than what you think. Your link to that blog from the accountant totally missed the mark.

The Evangelical Council of Financial Accountability lays out their case for why financial transparency is important to carrying out what they claim to be Christ's work.

Yes, I know what they say.  But "what they say" presupposes some coherent definitional standard of "financial transparency."  That phrase is very malleable, and can mean different things to different people.  And to the extent you provided resources that purport to quantify "financial transparency," it seems like the Church's financial and auditing and oversight practices seem to fall within them.

The problem, however, is that some folks think that the Church is not sufficiently "financially transparent."  Hence my query about what that term means, about what sort of metrics are in play.

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

We know the LDS Church has a large corporate empire. We know it takes in more than it spends. We know that it is "saving for a rainy day." But how much has it saved? How big is the rainy day fund?

Why is publishing the particulars of these amounts the benchmark of "finanical transparency?"  Says who?

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

Those are the details the Church doesn't want anybody to know. My speculation is that if the membership knew how much the church has saved, many members would reconsider whether they should at least temporarily reduce their tithing and instead work on their own rainy day funds. And I think that if the apostles knew how much money the church has saved, that would influence the decisions they make, too.

Not even the apostles are allowed to see the church's balance sheet. That is what they are hiding. That is what it is really about.

Your speculation is noted, and taken as such.

Also, CFR that "{n}ot even the apostles are allowed to see the church's balance sheet."

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...